The importance of the highest level of ethical and moral behavior among scientists is so universally accepted that it has become one of the "truths" which govern the scientific discovery process. Historically, young and developing scientists have learned what is expected of them when planning, doing and reporting research through the informal mechanisms inherent in the mentor-based training model of research. As the complexities, opportunities, and size of biomedical research have expanded; however, concern has been raised that trainees are not acquiring the normative behaviors expected. This has led to the establishment of expectations for systematic, formalized training in Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR). While this systematic training is well intended, prior studies have failed to identify meaningful impacts of such training, especially with respect to some of the most important behavioral expectations. At present, it is unclear if failure to see impacts of RCR training is due to training design flaws, ineffective evaluation methodologies, intractability of research trainees, mixed messages they receive between courses and real life in the lab, or fundamental differences in the frames of references between current trainees and established scientists. The proposed research will take a step back from simply evaluating another RCR course to study in depth the frames of references for current trainees and the impacts of an RCR course from those frames of reference. Using focus groups, individual interviews and qualitative research methods, the Aims will be to: 1. Work with faculty in the Mayo Graduate School course on RCR to define objectives and key messages for each topic. 2. Establish the baseline perspectives on RCR for trainees at several levels of training. 3. Determine trainee perceptions of the key messages provided in the RCR course. 4. Specifically probe trainee perspectives before, immediately after, and one year after an RCR course on two key topics- Conflict of Interest and Authorship. 5. Determine if trainees see consistency between messages provided in the course and their labs, and study the impact of inconsistencies on trainee attitudes and projected behavior. 6. Identify high frequency perceptions or frames of reference, which are substantially at odds with accepted research norms and begin designing better interventions to alter them.